You are right. I chose Apple products too. Please choose other alternatives, if you're making my Apple products more expensive due to strange buying habits, like being willing to pay for services unneeded.
I have no "strange buying habits". I simply decide based on my perception of value offered for a price. If I don;t like the value proposition, I look elsewhere.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
Did you bother to read the article? All I read was that an app could not require the user to purchase from an external vendor. If an outside source (like the Kindle store at Amazon) was made available, then the app would have to offer the same items from within the app. This would obviously allow Apple to make more money but it also makes such purchases less tedious for people who value simplicity (I don't, but I can understand why one might).
No one is required to participate unless they want to be in an app store that Apple runs. For instance, you could make an HTML5 web app that runs on iOS devices or apps that run native on webOS or Android. As a consumer even iOS apps with in-app purchase option would be fine with me if external options are also available (like the Kindle store). I like having both options.
I would expect Apple to announce NO cost for in-app purchases on content providing, since it's a special case they have certainly seen coming for a long time. It's Apple, not Microsoft...
It's actually Amazon and others who will set the price.
What I suspect will happen is that Apple will collect a small percentage for providing the payment processing. Amazon could likely leave prices as is and simply pay that processing fee to Apple since they would not be charged for that payment on their end. It might cost Amazon an addition 1% (I'll assume Amazon pays about 2% for their payment processing and Apple will charge 3%).
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
I would not be okay with that. But I would not allow it to shutdown my business (btw, I have run my own businesses for over 20 years).
But I don't think it comes to this. Apple is not going to ask for 30%. They want Amazon and B&N and Sony in their App Store. The problem is that people are assuming that Apple is absolutely intractable with regards to the cut they will take. I believe they will make a smart business choice which will look mostly look like business as usual except the customer will have a choice of "debit" (Amazon) or "credit" (iTunes).
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.
You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.
More like, "how would you like me to charge your credit card"?
You seem to not understand antitrust. The point is, if you go at Macy's, the highway doesn't charge you for the product.
I do understand anti-trust. The first thing to realize is that Apple is not the dominant player in e-books. The second thing is that Apple is not eliminating other avenues for purchase of the product.
I think the one thing you overlook is that the Kindle app is a merchandising platform and Apple would like to get a cut if you buy through iTunes (hell, let's be honest and admit Apple would really like a cut for all sales through the Kindle app). I don't think this is going to be much of an issue because i think Apple's cut is going to be reasonable.
What most amuses me is that Apple, once again, gets all kinds of free press and will again when they announce lower fees.
It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.
They brought it on themselves xD. My initial reaction to the news this morning was Sony was trying to stir up some FUD against Apple to make themselves look like the victim in the face of all the negative press they're receiving surrounding the PS3 jailbreak. If it weren't for the WSJ blog post, I'd still believe that right now.
Wrong. You seem to have forgotten the news. Amaon DOES have to "participate". See the other posts for WHY it MIGHT make the webstore more expensive than it would be WITHOUT that necessity. And you can answer again, but I'll be working now... some of us have money to make, you see.
Amazon has the option to simply not play in Apple's garden.
I made my money this morning so I get to play now.
I don't understand where all the hostility is coming from. It's very simple. If you have an app that accepts purchases from outside the App store (like Kindle, books from Amazon's website) there also must be a way to purchase them from inside the app. Yes, currently Apple takes 30%. The prices may be higher then buying them directly. It has a couple great advantages though. I don't have to give my credit card info to anyone else, make another account or deal with another website. I don't have to figure out how to get the purchase onto the iOS device. (Granted in some cases like Kindle it's pretty easy) You still have the choice to buy it directly and maybe pay less.
If my Aunt or Uncle downloaded the Kindle app, believe me, you do not want to have to explain that you have to go to Amazon to buy a book. I know it's crazy simple for the readers here, but they just don't get it. Requiring that in app purchases are available means the whole ecosystem is enclosed if the user chooses it to be. This is a good thing to have, but it's also good that it isn't the only system available.
For some online services that have paid accounts I'd love to be able to pay through the App store even if it is 30% more. Simplify my billing and avoid having to pass my credit card info to too many places.
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
That would be horrible if that's what Apple was saying but they aren't. What they are saying is that they want customers to be able to get your content and use your app without creating additional accounts or having to supply their credit card information. (It also means that people without credit cards that use gift cards can buy content) To support that they have to have an in app purchase system.
Apple isn't requiring that it be the only way to purchase content or that the prices are the same. It may not be fair for Apple to take 30% in all cases, but as a consumer I want the option to pay for any services or content from an app through the store, regardless of it is costs more or not. I don't EVER want to be required to hand over my credit card information for content/service destined to an iOS app.
Apple are not and never have been about Market share, they have been about profit which allows for a massive r and d budget which keeps them, constantly, ahead of the competition - the same competition who have been playing catch up since the original iMac. Where are all this iPod killers of ten years ago? The same place the iPad killers will be in the next four years. Samsung galaxy tab anyone?!
Would you rather own shares in apple or google?
A boutique company who are the second most cash rich in the world! What rock are you living under?
Anyone can give away their product to achieve Market share. Not a great business model though, is it?!
Great Post!!! Whenever I buy ANY product, I don't chose the BEST one, I ALWAYS buy whatever product will allow the manufacture to make the most profit so that their stock price goes up!
exactly -- free apps help Apple by keeping people involved with their products. free apps with ads pay for the service Apple provides by giving them a cut of ad revenue. free apps that make money and do nothing to support Apple?
why is Apple supposed to supply a user base, platform, servers to host the app, bandwidth for the thousands of people downloading the Kindle app -- and let Amazon/Sony/etc profit directly?
I do feel very conflicted about this.
I'll tell you why - the iBookstore is 2nd rate. They have a fraction of the titles Amazon and B&N do, and without them the iPad is semi-useless as an ebook reader.
The Kindle and Nook apps greatly enhance the value of the iPad itself as an ereader - THAT is what Apple gets out of it. Apple is basically a hardware company - they make their money selling iPads, not ebooks. And they sell more iPads because Amazon offers a huge catalog of ebooks for the iPad without Apple having to lift a finger. Apple is a day late and a dollar short with their deficient ebook selection, and they should be GRATEFUL to Amazon for providing it for them. And you folks DO realize if Apple wants their 30%, it will just be tacked on to what YOU have to pay. Amazon's margins are too thin for them to be able to cut Apple in for 30% of what they currently charge.
But of course it still remains to be seen what will actually happen. At this point I have a hard time imagining Apple pulling this nonsense - are they really going to somehow recall the millions of copies of the Kindle app? Unlikely. I would keep a close eye on any future Kindle "updates" to be safe.
Half the people on this forum can't freaking read.
It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.
Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.
Half the people on this forum can't freaking read.
It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.
Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.
I'm not sure you understood what was written.
Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:
A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller
OR
Raise the price of all ebooks to cover the additional cost of "In App" purchases
OR
C) Some combination of A and B.
I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into play?punishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDevice?or reader apps pulled from iOS.
Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.
If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong..
Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:
A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller
OR
Raise the price of all ebooks to cover the additional cost of "In App" purchases
OR
C) Some combination of A and B.
I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into play?punishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDevice?or reader apps pulled from iOS.
Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.
You are going a little far that the company MUST do one of those three things. They could negotiate with suppliers, authors or just eat the costs. As far as 30% goes, you'd actually have to increase the cost by about 43% to get the original cost after Apple takes 30%. If the original cost is $10 ($10 = x * 70%), x ends up being $14.29.
I don't think the companies would raise all prices. They'd just charge more in the app store. If people had no choice but to buy it from the App store they could do it at least. I have a feeling that it would help negotiate better terms with Apple. We'll see what Apple ends up doing.
Comments
Provided the out-of-app option price point doesn't go up due to the in-app "option", then, you are right.
However, this needs some clarifying by Apple, which should happen soon.
We agree 100% here.
I suspect we may find out more at The Daily event.
You are right. I chose Apple products too. Please choose other alternatives, if you're making my Apple products more expensive due to strange buying habits, like being willing to pay for services unneeded.
I have no "strange buying habits". I simply decide based on my perception of value offered for a price. If I don;t like the value proposition, I look elsewhere.
Apple is becoming abusive with their position , just because you buy a record player from someone doesn't mean they can say you can't play any records not bought from us. It's time for the federal government to look into Apple's practice with the app store and their effort to squash any alternative stores ( Cydia).
Did you bother to read the article? All I read was that an app could not require the user to purchase from an external vendor. If an outside source (like the Kindle store at Amazon) was made available, then the app would have to offer the same items from within the app. This would obviously allow Apple to make more money but it also makes such purchases less tedious for people who value simplicity (I don't, but I can understand why one might).
No one is required to participate unless they want to be in an app store that Apple runs. For instance, you could make an HTML5 web app that runs on iOS devices or apps that run native on webOS or Android. As a consumer even iOS apps with in-app purchase option would be fine with me if external options are also available (like the Kindle store). I like having both options.
I would expect Apple to announce NO cost for in-app purchases on content providing, since it's a special case they have certainly seen coming for a long time. It's Apple, not Microsoft...
It's actually Amazon and others who will set the price.
What I suspect will happen is that Apple will collect a small percentage for providing the payment processing. Amazon could likely leave prices as is and simply pay that processing fee to Apple since they would not be charged for that payment on their end. It might cost Amazon an addition 1% (I'll assume Amazon pays about 2% for their payment processing and Apple will charge 3%).
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
I would not be okay with that. But I would not allow it to shutdown my business (btw, I have run my own businesses for over 20 years).
But I don't think it comes to this. Apple is not going to ask for 30%. They want Amazon and B&N and Sony in their App Store. The problem is that people are assuming that Apple is absolutely intractable with regards to the cut they will take. I believe they will make a smart business choice which will look mostly look like business as usual except the customer will have a choice of "debit" (Amazon) or "credit" (iTunes).
They would almost have to. That's the only way I can see this move by Apple working in any way, shape, or form.
And Apple isn't stupid. They want this content available through their App Store.
My point wasn't that it makes anything legal. My point was that there are platforms out there that are more restrictive than iOS like playstation and xbox. Add to that the fact that Sony has managed to get someones property removed and their rights restricted. I certainly hope geohot wins but even if he does sony will still have a more closed platform than iOS.
It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.
You mean like when the cashier asks you "cash or credit"? Based on what others are saying, this only impacts the payment process since Amazon, for instance, does the fulfillment.
More like, "how would you like me to charge your credit card"?
You seem to not understand antitrust. The point is, if you go at Macy's, the highway doesn't charge you for the product.
I do understand anti-trust. The first thing to realize is that Apple is not the dominant player in e-books. The second thing is that Apple is not eliminating other avenues for purchase of the product.
I think the one thing you overlook is that the Kindle app is a merchandising platform and Apple would like to get a cut if you buy through iTunes (hell, let's be honest and admit Apple would really like a cut for all sales through the Kindle app). I don't think this is going to be much of an issue because i think Apple's cut is going to be reasonable.
What most amuses me is that Apple, once again, gets all kinds of free press and will again when they announce lower fees.
It's somewhat humorous that Sony is both victim and villain in this thread.
They brought it on themselves xD. My initial reaction to the news this morning was Sony was trying to stir up some FUD against Apple to make themselves look like the victim in the face of all the negative press they're receiving surrounding the PS3 jailbreak. If it weren't for the WSJ blog post, I'd still believe that right now.
HOA = Home Owner's association?
Yes, it is.
Wrong. You seem to have forgotten the news. Amaon DOES have to "participate". See the other posts for WHY it MIGHT make the webstore more expensive than it would be WITHOUT that necessity. And you can answer again, but I'll be working now... some of us have money to make, you see.
Amazon has the option to simply not play in Apple's garden.
I made my money this morning so I get to play now.
If my Aunt or Uncle downloaded the Kindle app, believe me, you do not want to have to explain that you have to go to Amazon to buy a book. I know it's crazy simple for the readers here, but they just don't get it. Requiring that in app purchases are available means the whole ecosystem is enclosed if the user chooses it to be. This is a good thing to have, but it's also good that it isn't the only system available.
For some online services that have paid accounts I'd love to be able to pay through the App store even if it is 30% more. Simplify my billing and avoid having to pass my credit card info to too many places.
Do business or don't do business. That's basically what you're saying. So again, if a service that was intended for iOS-only devices and was playing by the rules with Apple for years was suddenly told they'll either need to start allowing Apple to take 30% of their revenue or have their application, and their business, shut down... you would be okay with that?
Edit: I mean, I realize that is a bit of an extreme example, but that could potentially be the case for someone out there.
That would be horrible if that's what Apple was saying but they aren't. What they are saying is that they want customers to be able to get your content and use your app without creating additional accounts or having to supply their credit card information. (It also means that people without credit cards that use gift cards can buy content) To support that they have to have an in app purchase system.
Apple isn't requiring that it be the only way to purchase content or that the prices are the same. It may not be fair for Apple to take 30% in all cases, but as a consumer I want the option to pay for any services or content from an app through the store, regardless of it is costs more or not. I don't EVER want to be required to hand over my credit card information for content/service destined to an iOS app.
Naive nonsense.
Apple are not and never have been about Market share, they have been about profit which allows for a massive r and d budget which keeps them, constantly, ahead of the competition - the same competition who have been playing catch up since the original iMac. Where are all this iPod killers of ten years ago? The same place the iPad killers will be in the next four years. Samsung galaxy tab anyone?!
Would you rather own shares in apple or google?
A boutique company who are the second most cash rich in the world! What rock are you living under?
Anyone can give away their product to achieve Market share. Not a great business model though, is it?!
Great Post!!! Whenever I buy ANY product, I don't chose the BEST one, I ALWAYS buy whatever product will allow the manufacture to make the most profit so that their stock price goes up!
No, you're not brainwashed, not much!
exactly -- free apps help Apple by keeping people involved with their products. free apps with ads pay for the service Apple provides by giving them a cut of ad revenue. free apps that make money and do nothing to support Apple?
why is Apple supposed to supply a user base, platform, servers to host the app, bandwidth for the thousands of people downloading the Kindle app -- and let Amazon/Sony/etc profit directly?
I do feel very conflicted about this.
I'll tell you why - the iBookstore is 2nd rate. They have a fraction of the titles Amazon and B&N do, and without them the iPad is semi-useless as an ebook reader.
The Kindle and Nook apps greatly enhance the value of the iPad itself as an ereader - THAT is what Apple gets out of it. Apple is basically a hardware company - they make their money selling iPads, not ebooks. And they sell more iPads because Amazon offers a huge catalog of ebooks for the iPad without Apple having to lift a finger. Apple is a day late and a dollar short with their deficient ebook selection, and they should be GRATEFUL to Amazon for providing it for them. And you folks DO realize if Apple wants their 30%, it will just be tacked on to what YOU have to pay. Amazon's margins are too thin for them to be able to cut Apple in for 30% of what they currently charge.
But of course it still remains to be seen what will actually happen. At this point I have a hard time imagining Apple pulling this nonsense - are they really going to somehow recall the millions of copies of the Kindle app? Unlikely. I would keep a close eye on any future Kindle "updates" to be safe.
It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.
Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.
Half the people on this forum can't freaking read.
It won't make Kindle Books 30% more expensive, because you'll still be able to buy them on the Amazon website. There must have been at least 10 people who claimed that.
Ironic really; all these people complaining about books, who can't read.
I'm not sure you understood what was written.
Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:
A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller
OR
OR
C) Some combination of A and B.
I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into play?punishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDevice?or reader apps pulled from iOS.
Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.
If Apple keeps this sort of behavior up, they are going to have an exciting anti-trust suit on their hands. Major corporations with competing products -- Sony, Amazon -- are not going to simply standby and allow their business models undermined by Apple, especially if that means Apple is going to take a cut of every purchase.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong..
I'm not sure you understood what was written.
Ebooks purchased via Apple would have an additional 30% cost imposed by Apple. Because of that cost difference, ebook sellers (such as Amazon) must EITHER:
A) Charge an additional 30% for ebooks purchased "In App" over the price of books purchased directly from the seller
OR
OR
C) Some combination of A and B.
I can't see Apple being at all happy about "In App" prices being 30% higher than direct purchases, so it's quite possible that may insist on "In App" purchase prices being the same as direct prices. If that happens, we'll either see option B put into play?punishing everyone who buys an ebook with higher prices, even if they never use an iDevice?or reader apps pulled from iOS.
Either way, higher costs for eBook sellers will be the inevitable result of "In App" purchases, and those costs will have to be covered by higher prices somewhere in the system. Even if Apple doesn't insist on equal pricing, it seems likely that option C will come into play, if for no other reason than preemptively trying to prevent Apple from getting ticked off at the lack of sales due to such a high price difference.
You are going a little far that the company MUST do one of those three things. They could negotiate with suppliers, authors or just eat the costs. As far as 30% goes, you'd actually have to increase the cost by about 43% to get the original cost after Apple takes 30%. If the original cost is $10 ($10 = x * 70%), x ends up being $14.29.
I don't think the companies would raise all prices. They'd just charge more in the app store. If people had no choice but to buy it from the App store they could do it at least. I have a feeling that it would help negotiate better terms with Apple. We'll see what Apple ends up doing.